pp 1–25 | Cite as

Is Austria’s economy locked-in in the CESEE region? Austria’s competitiveness at the micro-level

  • Mahdi GhodsiEmail author
Original Paper


This paper analyses the competitiveness of Austrian manufacturing industries by comparing the performance of Austrian firms with the Western European firms using recent estimates of total factor productivity (TFP) across Wider Europe (EU-28 plus Western Balkans) during the period 2007–2015. According to the TFP estimates, Austrian firms with larger turnovers, and less employment, in regions with less regional-industrial concentration of labour have become more competitive in terms of TFP. Using firm’s TFP and other characteristics aggregated by industries across Wider Europe, a structural gravity model for exports is estimated. In line with the Ricardian models of trade and new trade theories, results show that larger trade across countries in the sample is driven by intra-firm trade, and comparative advantages that are measured as better efficiency of industries in terms of simple average of TFP growth of firms and more allocation of capital to more efficient firms. Comparing the actual values of exports from Austria to Central, East and Southeast Europe (CESEE) with the counterfactual predicted values of the structural gravity model, I find that since 2012 excessive exports were directed to Western Europe rather than to CESEE. In a robustness check using unilateral exports value, these interesting findings also confirmed that a potential Austrian lock-in effect in the CESEE region reversed and trade diverged to the more competitive market of Western Europe.


Firm performance Total factor productivity (TFP) Structural gravity model Exports performance Lock-in effect 

JEL Classification

D22 D24 F14 F15 F23 L25 



Research for this paper was financed by the Anniversary Fund of Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Project No. 17037). Financial support provided by Oesterreichische Nationalbank for this research is gratefully acknowledged.

Special thanks should go to Vasily Astrov, Loredan Fattorini, Mario Holzner, Michael Landesmann, Sandor Richter, Armando Rungi, Robert Stehrer, and Roman Stöllinger for their suggestions and constructive comments during the preparation of this work.


  1. Ackerberg DA, Caves K, Frazer G (2015) Identification properties of recent production function estimators. Econometrica 83(6):2411–2451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiello F, Pupo V, Ricotta F (2015) Firm Heterogeneity in TFP, sectoral innovation and location evidence from Italy. Int Rev Appl Econ 29(5):579–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altomonte C, Aquilante T, Békés G, Ottaviano GI (2013) Internationalization and innovation of firms: evidence and policy. Econ Policy 28(76):663–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez F, Lucas RE Jr (2007) General equilibrium analysis of the Eaton–Kortum model of international trade. J Monet Econ 54(6):1726–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson JE (1979) A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. Am Econ Rev 69(1):106–116Google Scholar
  6. Anderson JE, van Wincoop E (2003) Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. Am Econ Rev 93(1):170–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Antràs P (2003) Firms, contracts, and trade structure. Q J Econ 118(4):1375–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Antras P, Helpman E (2004) Global sourcing. J Polit Econ 112(3):552–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arkolakis C, Costinot A, Rodríguez-Clare A (2012) New trade models, same old gains? Am Econ Rev 102(1):94–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Atkeson A, Burstein AT (2010) Innovation, firm dynamics, and international trade. J Polit Econ 118(3):433–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baldwin R, Taglioni D (2006) Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations (No. w12516). National bureau of economic researchGoogle Scholar
  12. Baldwin R, Taglioni D (2007) Trade effects of the euro: a comparison of estimators. J Econ Integr 22:780–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beaudry C, Schiffauerova A (2009) Who’s right, Marshall or Jacobs? The localization versus urbanization debate. Res Policy 38(2):318–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bernard AB, Redding SJ, Schott PK (2009) Products and productivity. Scand J Econ 111(4):681–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Caliendo L, Parro F (2015) Estimates of the Trade and Welfare Effects of NAFTA. The Review of Economic Studies 82(1):1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chaney T (2008) Distorted gravity: the intensive and extensive margins of international trade. Am Econ Rev 98(4):1707–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen N (2004) Intra-national versus international trade in the European Union: why do national borders matter? J Int Econ 63(1):93–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Loecker J (2011) Product differentiation, multiproduct firms, and estimating the impact of trade liberalization on productivity. Econometrica 79(5):1407–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Delgado M, Ketels C, Porter ME, Stern S (2012). The determinants of national competitiveness (No. w18249). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  20. Dhingra S, Huang H, Ottaviano G, Paulo Pessoa J, Sampson T, Van Reenen J (2017) The costs and benefits of leaving the EU: trade effects. Econ Policy 32(92):651–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dhyne E, di Mauro F, Berthou A, Galuscak K, Altomonte C, Opromolla LD, Angeloni C (2014) Micro-based evidence of EU competitiveness: the CompNet database (No. 1634). European Central BankGoogle Scholar
  22. Di Giovanni J, Levchenko AA (2013) Firm entry, trade, and welfare in Zipf’s world. J Int Econ 89(2):283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dixit AK, Stiglitz JE (1977) Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. Am Econ Rev 67(3):297–308Google Scholar
  24. Duguet E (2006) Innovation height, spillovers and TFP growth at the firm level: evidence from French manufacturing. Econ Innov New Technol 15(4–5):415–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eaton J, Kortum S (2002) Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica 70(5):1741–1779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eaton J, Kortum S (2012) Putting Ricardo to work. J Econ Perspect 26(2):65–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eslava M, Haltiwanger J, Kugler A, Kugler M (2004) The effects of structural reforms on productivity and profitability enhancing reallocation: evidence from Colombia’. J Dev Econ 75(2):333–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fattorini L, Ghodsi M., Rungi A (2018a) Cohesion policy meets heterogeneous firms. wiiw working paper No. 142. The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiwGoogle Scholar
  29. Feenstra RC, Romalis J (2014) International prices and endogenous quality. Q J Econ 129(2):477–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Felbermayr G, Gröschl JK, Heiland I (2018) Undoing Europe in a new quantitative trade model (No. 250). Ifo working paperGoogle Scholar
  31. Fenz G, Ragacs C, Schneider M, Vondra K (2015) Marktanteilsentwicklung der österreichischen Exportwirtschaft ‘, OeNB Konjunktur Aktuell, JuneGoogle Scholar
  32. Gal PN (2013) Measuring total factor productivity at the firm level using OECD-ORBIS, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1049Google Scholar
  33. Hagemejer J, Ghodsi M (2017) Up or down the value chain? A comparative analysis of the GVC position of the economies of the new EU member states. Central European Economic Journal, 1(ahead-of-print)Google Scholar
  34. Hallak JC (2006) Product quality and the direction of trade. J Int Econ 68(1):238–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hansen T (2010) Exports and productivity: an empirical analysis of German and Austrian firm-level performance, Munich Discussion Paper, No. 2010-22, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Volkswirtschaftliche Fakultät, München. Accessed 24 Apr 2019
  36. Hanzl-Weiss D, Heimberger P, Pindyuk O, Stöllinger R (2018) Is Austria‘s economy locked-in the CESEE region? A mesoeconomic analysis. wiiw research report, No. 433Google Scholar
  37. Head K, Mayer T (2004) Market potential and the location of Japanese investment in the European Union. Rev Econ Stat 86(4):959–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Head K, Mayer T (2014) Chapter 3—Gravity equations: workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook, In: Gopinath G, Helpman E, Rogoff K, (eds) Handbook of international economics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, vol 4, pp 131–195, ISSN 1573-4404, ISBN 9780444543141,
  39. Heimberger P (2018a) How much do trading partners matter for Austria’s competitiveness and export performance?. Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies. wiiw research report No. 435Google Scholar
  40. Heimberger P (2018b). What explains Austria’s export market performance? The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw working paper No. 149Google Scholar
  41. Helpman E, Melitz M, Rubinstein Y (2008) Estimating trade flows: trading partners and trading volumes. Q J Econ 123(2):441–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holzner M (2015) Aufwind im Westen Mittel-, Ost- und Südosteuropas: Wichtige Wachstumsimpulse für Österreich‘, wiiw Forschungsbericht, No.1Google Scholar
  43. Hulten CR (2001) Total factor productivity: a short biography. In: Hulten CR, Dean ER, Harper MJ (eds) New developments in productivity analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Johnson RC, Noguera G (2012) Accounting for intermediates: production sharing and trade in value added. J Int Econ 86(2):224–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Johnson RC, Noguera G (2017) A portrait of trade in value-added over four decades. Rev Econ Stat 99(5):896–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Katayama H, Lu S, Tybout JR (2009) Firm-level productivity studies: illusions and a solution. Int J Ind Organ 27(3):403–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Koopman R, Wang Z, Wei SJ (2008) How much of Chinese exports is really made in China? Assessing domestic value-added when processing trade is pervasive (No. w14109). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  48. Koopman R, Powers W, Wang Z, Wei SJ (2010) Give credit where credit is due: tracing value added in global production chains (No. w16426). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  49. Lanz R, Miroudot S (2011) Intra-Firm Trade: Patterns, Determinants and Policy Implications, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 114. OECD Publishing, Paris. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Levinsohn J, Petrin A (2003) Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Rev Econ Stud 70(2):317–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lopez-Garcia P, Di Mauro F (2015) Assessing European competitiveness: the new CompNet microbased database, ECB working paper Series, No. 1764Google Scholar
  52. Marin D (2006) A new international division of labor in Europe: outsourcing and offshoring to Eastern Europe. J Eur Econ Assoc 4(2–3):612–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Marschak J, Andrews WH (1944) Random simultaneous equations and the theory of production. Econometrica 12:143–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McCallum J (1995) National borders matter: canada-US regional trade patterns. Am Econ Rev 85(3):615–623Google Scholar
  55. Melitz MJ (2003) The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 71(6):1695–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Melitz MJ, Ottaviano GI (2008) Market size, trade, and productivity. Rev Econ Stud 75(1):295–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Miroudot S, Lanz R, Ragoussis A (2009) Trade in intermediate goods and services. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 93. OECD Publishing, Paris. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Navaretti GB, Venables AJ, Barry F (2006) Multinational firms in the world economy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  59. Olley GS, Pakes A (1996) The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica 64(6):1263–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ornaghi C (2006) Assessing the effects of measurement errors on the estimation of production functions. J Appl Econ 21(6):879–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ottaviano GIP (2014) European integration and the gains from trade. In: Badinger H, Nitsch V (eds) Chapter prepared for the handbook of the economics of European integration, CFS Working Paper, No. 470, Routledge. Available at SSRN:
  62. Rungi A, Del Prete D (2018) The smile curve at the firm level: where value is added along supply chains. Econ Lett 164:38–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stehrer R (2012) Trade in value added and the valued added in trade. Wiener Institute für Internat. Wirtschaftsvergleiche, wiiw working paper, No. 81, Vienna, June 2012Google Scholar
  64. Stöllinger R (2016) Structural change and global value chains. Empirica 43(4):801–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stöllinger R (2019) Testing the smile curve: functional specialisation in GVCs and value creation, wiiw working paper, No. 163, Vienna, February 2019Google Scholar
  66. Tinbergen J (1962) Shaping the world economy; suggestions for an international economic policy. Books (Jan Tinbergen)Google Scholar
  67. Van Beveren I (2012) Total factor productivity estimation: a practical review. J Econ Surv 26(1):98–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wei SJ (1996) Intra-national versus international trade: how stubborn are nations in global integration? (No. w5531). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  69. Wolf HC (2000) Intranational Home Bias in Trade. Rev Econ Stat 82(4):555–563. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wooldridge JM (2009) On estimating firm-level production functions using proxy variables to control for unobservables. Econ Lett 104(3):112–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yotov YV, Piermartini R, Monteiro JA, Larch M (2016) An advanced guide to trade policy analysis: the structural gravity model. World Trade Organization, GenevaCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (Wiiw)ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations